Right of resistance
A thin line between anger and dissent
In the midst of a rant against reactionary vitriol from fellow conservatives, Andrew Sullivan discusses his intellectual roots:
While I adhere to most of the principles of the small government right, I am aware of the important balancing act of a liberal coalition in keeping this country on an even keel. I come from the Oakeshottian school that supports what he called “civil association” but also understands the necessity for the other strain in Anglo-American thought, “enterprise association.” I do not want either party to have total power; and I do not believe every political argument has to be zero-sum. I loathe the cynicism that prefers trashing a new president over solving a serious social problem for people in real need.
What are the limits of dissent? As the rest of the post makes clear, Sullivan’s position is that conservatives should put together real proposals for whatever positive change they want, and leave nonconstructive rants at the door.
There’s an open question as to whether that’s an apt characterization of right-wing protests against, say, health care reform, but how successfully does Sullivan’s reasoning hang together? Leaving aside the details of Michael Oakeshott’s political thought, Sullivan seems to endorses a kind of balance of power, whereby no one party has absolute control.
These sorts of arguments make sense in our reasonable moments. A counterbalance against the ruling party ostensibly keeps the minority faction satisfied while ensuring that a stronger diversity of viewpoints comes to bear on major political decisions. After all, even the majority should be happy that their policies are that much better for running the gauntlet of opposition arguments.
Yet when our agenda is stymied (social security reform in 2005 or health care now), it seems more appealing to have an absolutely majority–balance of power be damned.
The other problem here is that “trashing a new president” may not be cynicism. Depending on the depth of disagreement between discontents and their president, disobedience may be the only option. This would be to argue that the president is not legitimate by way of his fringe agenda.
Sullivan treats angry conservatives as if they’re protesting for its own sake. But their chosen symbols suggest otherwise. The spate of Tea Party protests earlier this year was intended to reference the famous Boston Tea Party, which was a true act of civil disobedience–a condemnation of illegitimate government power.
To those conservatives who can brook no philosophical compromise with Obama’s governing agenda, fierce protest isn’t cynicism. It’s their only choice. To these individuals, offering reasoned disagreement as a political counterweight may be akin to complicity.
If that’s the case, the real question is whether Obama’s agenda really is illegitimate, or whether it falls within the bounds of acceptable majority rule. Unfortunately, that judgment may rest in the eye of the beholder.
–Sam
Related posts:
- President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
- The Obama paradox
- Public healthcare, private practice
- Internal contestation
- More on healthcare and choice
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
